Jump to content

User talk:The Earwig/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Note

I have nominated you for BAG membership at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/The Earwig, please review the nomination and if you accept, notify the appropriate pages and transclude the nomination to WT:BAG. Best. MBisanz talk 06:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've accepted your nomination. — The Earwig @ 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Bots or BAGs to offer any kind of meaningful input there, but I just wanted to wish you success! I frequently use your Copyright Violation Detector — it's been very helpful. I feel grateful to you every time I do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Malfunction

Could you please contact me on IRC soon as possible about your second bot, it is malfunctioning, but not causing problems at the moment. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it, thanks. — The Earwig @ 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

AFC Barnstar

The Articles for Creation barnstar
You have made some great contribs to the team. Especially with your bot. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to give you the honour of this companion ribbon. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it :) — The Earwig @ 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

You are now a BAG member

Hey, just letting you know that your BAG nomination has succeeded, and you are now a member. Congrats. -- Pakaran 03:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dinanath Gopal Tendulkar

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dinanath Gopal Tendulkar? I wasn't the one who created it, but I made some improvements and then another editor improved it even more. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article definitely looks much better than it did before. I don't have a problem with it being accepted now that it has significantly better referencing. — The Earwig @ 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Scottish Defence League

Did you actually read this article before moving it to mainspace? I assume that you acted in good faith, but I have reverted it to being a redirect to the parent article. In addition, I have reported the author, White uk (talk · contribs), for having an offensive username. Please discuss on the EDL talk page if you so wish. Verbal chat 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm fine with what you did. The acceptance was pretty stupid on my end and probably a bad idea. It was done following a discussion over IRC in #wikipedia-en-afc connect, and we were intending to stubify it to something like this:
The '''Scottish Defence league''' is an offshoot of the English Defence League.<ref>]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8359336.stm Clashes after rival city marches], BBC</ref>
Unfortunately, that didn't work out so well, because I was interrupted before I could complete the stubifying. So, the article was left in a poor and rather inappropriate state. You're reversion of the move back to a redirect was probably the best course of action. — The Earwig @ 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, best Verbal chat 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"an expand tag on a fully-protected article is stupid"

I agree and propose that you add your code to Template:Expand.

By the way, how are you doing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change. Hopefully, the edit will stick and I won't find myself reverted! Heh. I'm doing well, actually; thanks for asking. I'm trying to get back into article work, something I haven't done in a while due to real life preventing me from contributing a lot. If I'm lucky, things will settle down soon and I'll be able to become more active. Best. — The Earwig (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

An AfC Barnstar!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For creating yet another (soon to be) very useful bot for AfC. Keep up the good work! Gosox(55)(55) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Awe, thanks! :) — The Earwig (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

EarwigBot 8 approved

A couple of things I'd suggest: delinking interwikis and skipping DEFAULTSORT (as it's a magicword, not a template... sort of... but regardless, isn't going to add categories) Josh Parris 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Both done. — The Earwig (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

EarwigBot

With this edit, your bot placed the DYK template inside the article history, but I cannot see anything about the DYK now. Thoughts? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The bot didn't add that parameter because the template already contained it, albeit empty. — The Earwig (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

A very Smart Bot

Woah! I looked at my image. I saved it as a jpg, but I remembered that I just put JPG on my computer (when I saved the picture on paint, not on Wikipedia, well actually on both). Then I remembered it was still in the BMP file type thing. I think this bot is pretty well-programmed since it can tell the difference between a non-jpg picture and a jpg picture without the file-name saying it's a bmp! --Hadger 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I must have done a similar thing with File:Sam Katzman.jpg-- I do the cropping, touching up, etc. in .bmp format, then save to .jpg. Must have goofed on that one. I just uploaded the correct version and removed the bot message. Hope that was the right thing to do. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks to both of you for the comments. I really appreciate feedback on the task, and it's good to know that the bot is doing its job. Have a good one! — The Earwig (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot 2

Hi, Earwig,

You said on 7 March that the permission would expire in two weeks, yet you withdrew permission two days later. What gives? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the point in keeping it open longer. The operator had already withdrawn the task; I didn't think keeping the request open would have helped, because we weren't exactly waiting for something to occur. Often, requests are left open for a week or so until they're declined, and the reason we wait is because we want to give the operator enough time to respond. However, in this case, the operator had already responded, and it didn't seem like anyone else would be willing to take control of the bot. As I said, an interested user can contact harej; if someone wants to reopen the BRFA, the bot is still approved for trial. — The Earwig (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems relating to integration of "DYK talk" into "ArticleHistory"

Hi, the bot had a problems integrating {{DYK talk}} into {{ArticleHistory}} in the following cases:

  • "Ulrich Mühe": the out-of-place |num= parameter caused the bot to misinterpret the parameters.
  • "Æthelwig": |dykdate= ended up with the value "13 February|2010".

Any idea why? I've reverted the changes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the first, which was caused by an unusual template parameter arrangement that the bot didn't expect. I could have written a much better template parser, of course, which could have prevented that problem, but it would have taken a lot more time than necessary for the task. Instead, I went with a much simpler parser that handled the transition appropriately in 95% of cases, believing that it would be easier to correct a few mistakes than spend time writing an advanced template/wikicode parser. I'm not quite sure about the second one, to be honest – it's rather unusual, isn't it? — The Earwig (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Had another look at the second situation. I think the problem pre-existed the bot run, i.e., it was a typing error by an editor and not a bot issue. Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I see it now: they were using | instead of |. Nice. — The Earwig (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between the two characters? I can't tell visually. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm, am I seeing things? Now they appear to be the same thing. Uh... — The Earwig (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of bad mime types

He Earwig. Great work with the tagging of all the incorrect mime types. However, perhaps while you are doing, we can also tag file types that we don't really support ? like anything not gif/jpg/png/ogg etc ? Some of that material needs to be converted and it would really help if they were all in one category. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Permitted file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, oga." I've been converting a few bmps already, but it's slow paced :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm, interesting idea. We have a bunch of .wav and .mp3 files masquerading as .oggs, I know that much:
wav + mp3
mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM image WHERE img_major_mime = "audio" AND img_minor_mime = "wav";
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|      180 | 
+----------+
1 row in set (42.63 sec)
mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM image WHERE img_major_mime = "audio" AND img_minor_mime = "mp3";
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|       13 | 
+----------+
1 row in set (0.78 sec)
Of course, there are a few dozen files here with random MIME types I don't know the purpose for:
all mime types
mysql> SELECT DISTINCT(CONCAT(img_major_mime, "/", img_minor_mime)) FROM image ORDER BY CONCAT(img_major_mime, "/", img_minor_mime) ASC;
+-----------------------------------------------+
| (CONCAT(img_major_mime, "/", img_minor_mime)) |
+-----------------------------------------------+
| application/ogg                               | 
| application/pdf                               | 
| application/photoshop                         | 
| application/vnd.ms-excel                      | 
| application/x-bzip                            | 
| application/x-chess-pgn                       | 
| application/x-tcl                             | 
| application/xml                               | 
| audio/mid                                     | 
| audio/midi                                    | 
| audio/mp3                                     | 
| audio/wav                                     | 
| image/gif                                     | 
| image/jpeg                                    | 
| image/png                                     | 
| image/svg+xml                                 | 
| image/tiff                                    | 
| image/vnd.djvu                                | 
| image/x-bmp                                   | 
| image/x-ms-bmp                                | 
| image/x-photoshop                             | 
| image/x-xcf                                   | 
| model/vrml                                    | 
| text/plain                                    | 
| unknown/unknown                               | 
| video/quicktime                               | 
+-----------------------------------------------+
26 rows in set (1.78 sec)
We have PDFs, PSDs, Excel files, BZips, TCLs, XML, MIDs, MIDIs (does that even work?), MP3s, WAVs, TIFFs, DJVUs, XCFs, VRMLs (models? srsly?), Quicktime files, and a mess of unknown things. Most of this stuff should be removed or investigated further. But seriously, though. What should these be tagged with? CSD F2, right? — The Earwig (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll start by converting the five TIFFs we have:
tiffs
mysql> SELECT img_name FROM image WHERE img_major_mime = "image" AND img_minor_mime = "tiff" LIMIT 10;
+-----------------------+
| img_name              |
+-----------------------+
| Jack_and_Sam_Farr.jpg | 
| Lucyalone.jpeg        | 
| Onlibertyowc.jpg      | 
| Phil_Short.jpg        | 
| RCM_x2.jpg            | 
+-----------------------+
5 rows in set (0.79 sec)
— The Earwig (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If an unsupported File: is not orphaned in mainspace, some effort ought to be made (by humans, who can decide if it's actually needed in mainspace) to convert. Otherwise, speedy. Josh Parris 22:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we also have some old sourcefiles that can be use to recreate images. We can't go deleting that, we should at the very least discuss those files and see what is the best approach to deal with them, perhaps their information can be saved and converted. Shall I built a template tag to categorize them all so they can be further dealt with ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a new template/category combination would definitely be a good idea. — The Earwig (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like {{Unsupported media requiring review}} might work I guess. I thought it could be handy to add the currentmime to the template params, we might want to do some secondary filtering/categorizing on that later on (cat with only bmps for instance). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Correct assessment of what your bot does

RE: [1]

"User:EarwigBot: "The bot assists WikiProject Presidential Elections by tagging certain articles that are within the scope of the project with {{WikiProject United States presidential elections}}.""

Is this correct? Can you tag new projects on request? If you are willing to help tag new wikiprojects on request, please change the description of your bot at Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Okip 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

At present, that is correct. However, I am planning on changing that relatively soon (hopefully within a few weeks); I already have plans for tagging at WP:ALGAE, and when I file an approval request for that bot, I'll most likely request approval for WikiProject tagging in general. As for that list you're creating, future WikiProject tagging requests can be done on my talk page. I'll update it the future, when I've filed for approval. — The Earwig (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

EarwigBot Task 12 (BLP tagging)

Hello The Earwig, I noticed that EarwigBot does not appear to check for "blp=Yes" (uppercase Y) when it performs task 12; please see Talk:Steve_Arneil, where it added "blp=yes" despite "blp=Yes" already being present. Just bringing this to your attention. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fixed. — The Earwig (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was daydreaming about possible tools, and it was suggested to me that I should just ask you whether my dream tool is possible or perhaps even easy to make. If it is, I may be humbly requesting that you make us one or suggest somebody else who might. If it isn't, I'll stop dreaming. :D

Is it possible to make a variation of the copyvio tool that directly compares two URLS, whether that is two permanent links to Wikipedia articles (sometimes useful to see if an old copyvio has been restored) or to a Wikipedia article and another URL? Something like that would be a major time-saver for copyright work at CP (where we often have to read both article and identified source to even see where duplication begins) and especially at CCI with those contributors who do cite the sources they are copying from. We would need, though, something to let us know explicitly whether there were no similarities found or if for some reason the tool couldn't complete the request, so we don't clear material that actually does have duplicated content.

Anyway, I am technologically completely clueless, but if you could let me know if you can help with that, if somebody else could help with that or if it is in the realm of flying monkeys, I'd appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. While I'm here bothering you anyway, what is the possibility of getting either a separate tool to check articles against google books or getting the existing one to do so? Can it be done? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me try to understand. You want this hypothetical tool to compare an article (or the oldid of an article) with a specific URL in an attempt to find copyvios? Yeah, I can do that, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. — The Earwig (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Sometimes people mark articles as copyvios but they don't indicate where the problem text is, in the article or the source. A lot of frustration and wasted time goes into looking for that. If we could easily locate some of the specific language, it would help us zero in on the problem. Also, there are some contributors at WP:CCI who do cite the sources from which they copy. Looking for copyright violations in their articles usually requires reading through the articles and reading through the sources. If we could mechanically compare, that would save a lot of time. If we didn't have thousands of articles to review, it probably wouldn't have occurred to me. But we do, so we can use all the time-savers we can come up with. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, I'll get started on this soon. As for the Google Books thing, I honestly have no idea. I'll have to take a look at how Google stores their book data. Unfortunately, my guess is that it'll be near-impossible or quite difficult. — The Earwig (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I appreciate you thinking about it anyway, and I'll eagerly wait in hopes the other one works out! We'll gratefully take anything we can get! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm the crackpot behind MRG's first request, and noticed you already have a prototype up, some feedback:

  • The CV detector I've found parses article name&oldid=xxx (no underscores in article names) quite well but when you click on the reconstructed article's fullurl from the result page, it gives funky results. Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but if you're a perfectionist, you may want to look into it (and document this feature on the tool's page)
  • The intersection tool so far only dumped the unformatted wikicode of the article back to me, without CR/LF.
  • In terms of UI for the intersection tool, what I'd love to see as returns is an unambiguous result (couldn't parse or find article, couldn't parse alleged source, yahoo returned no results, and if yahoo provides for a distinction, yahoo couldn't find the alleged source page or domain)
  • For the google books, I believe you're contrained by the current limitations: 32 characters max in one query, but you can specify that the query is to search books.

I mention yahoo! above because I think I once had a peek at CSB's code in relation to your initial BRfA for EarwigBot and I dimly remember yahoo being active while google was commented out. Of course, if that assumption is no longer correct (or you also query MS Bing), by all means the more search engines the merrier (but since I can't code python, that's easy for me to say:) ).

At any rate, thanks for the terrific services the detector has already rendered me. It's become an invaluable tool for me, and I don't believe I have ever done you the credit you deserve for that. MLauba (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, as always. Of course, I'm not even close to being done with the intersection tool yet, so I can't respond to the brokenness of it; that's just the way it will be until I have a working version completed (that's why the wikicode text is spit back without any processing done; that's why the URL may not work yet). Yahoo is indeed the sole search engine used by EarwigBot and the main detector, but as the intersection tool only searches one URL, Yahoo isn't used by it.
Although, I must ask. What do you mean when you say that the oldid doesn't work? Is that on the intersection tool, or on the main detector tool? The main detector tool isn't designed to handle oldids, and the intersection tool doesn't parse oldids yet (or does it!?). Note that EarwigBot doesn't use CSB's code at all; it was an inspiration for me and the design has some similarities, but they're completely different. I honestly have no idea how CorenSearchBot works anyway. As for the UI: that is something I will be adding in later; for now, the result is a bunch of crap that makes little sense to others, but works for me while I'm developing it. — The Earwig (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It may not have been built to do it, but it will do it, and that's something I like about it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, to clarify: the oldid comment I made was for the main detector tool. Compare the clean version of an article with the infringing one tagged by CSB, and click on the article links on each result page. Oldid works even if you didn't plan for it :). MLauba (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, um... okay. That's odd! — The Earwig (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Face it, you're just a genius :) MLauba (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting; I've always pasted in the URL (voila). And I concur on the genius bit. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Almost done with this (sorry for the delays!), but some unusual/strange things came up and I was unable to work on it. Most of it is done, but I still need to test/perfect it before it's ready for mainstream usage. — The Earwig (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I look forward to giving it a go, but in the meantime am still accomplishing a lot with the one you've already given us. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How to submit acceptable article with verifiable sources.

Hi, I am looking into ways to get published the page I wrote on John E Cherubini, the yacht designer. I understand that there was not much on this page that is verifiable under the Wiki policy. However, how do I improve that?

For example-- what types of sources would be considered verifiable? Would mentions in magazines help? --page numbers in hard-copy books? --newspaper obituaries or other mentions?

Can you please tell me what types of sources are acceptable for a subject who does not have a current Wikipedia presence but, in the minds of his many fans and admirers, should? This man has been a modest though important influence on the world of yacht design and one has only yo Google-search his name to come up with many references made by a variety of people that do not include family and longtime personal friends. How can I use this wealth of notoriety to include him under Wikipedia (and get myself started in writing for the encylopedia as well!)?

I appreciate all constructive contributions; and I'll try to check back with this page more frequently in future. Thanks for all that you do.


JC

Jcomet (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.
Firstly, a question: are you connected to the subject in some way, in business, or whatever? If not, skip this part. If so, then you have a conflict of interest, and thus it is very difficult to write a neutral, acceptable article - please read this essay on best practice, and about autobiographies (even if it is not yourself, a lot applies).
Next - notability. In order to have an article on Wikipedia, the subject must meet the notability guidelines. The simplest, most important one is the general notability guideline, which says a subject needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That carefully-worded phrase explains quite a lot;
Significant coverage - such as, a number of news articles about the article topic - not passing mentions
Reliable sources - well, this is defined in some detail in WP:RS, but the essence of it is - something that is generally trusted - such as the BBC, CNN, The New York Times. Books are good, too. Blog-sites are rarely reliable.
Independent - we don't use primary sources, such as the persons own website, or their publishers/labels website, or anything like that. We avoid press-releases. We want secondary coverage - other people independently writing about the subject.
Please feel free to edit it, improve it, ask for help with it, etc. There is no deadline. If, eventually, you are able to add suitable references (as I have described), then ask us to review it again.
I hope that you will continue to work on WIkipedia, and I assure you that I will help in any way I can. For more help, you can either;
  • Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
  • Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
  • Talk to us live, with this or this.
Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Your input is requested

As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I edited this article once, three and half months ago, to fix a hatnote. Not really sure if this applies to me, as I have no idea what's happening, but I'll take a look. — The Earwig (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No need to weigh in if you do not choose to; I merely notified the last 18 editors of the article, skipping two who seem to have not become regular contributors. I hesitated about those who only added one or two edits, but felt it better to err on the side of contacting everyone, to avoid any appearance of favoritism or canvassing, than to try to determine the extent of any individual editor's involvement with the article. That said, your input would of course be very welcome! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Rob Mitchell.pdf

Hi! Would it be possible to use your copyright bot to check what may be a hoax article? To save duplicating a complex message the details are on LessHeard vanU's talk page Here. Many thanks. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to clarify, you want me to check the PDF for copyright violations? No problem, I'll get started on that in a sec. — ⊥ɥǝ Ǝɐɹʍıƃ (ʇɐlʞ) 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I ran a check on it, and couldn't find anything. However, I'm not entirely certain that it isn't a copyvio either – I'm not sure if the search engine the bot uses supports PDFs properly. I did try inputting the text directly, but the problem isn't whether the bot can read the PDF, but if it is able to read other PDFs on the internet. In my opinion, this issue probably requires a more in-depth, manual, copyvio review due to the document's nature. — ⊥ɥǝ Ǝɐɹʍıƃ (ʇɐlʞ) 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Adelaida Cellars

Editors: Please be advised that the texts in question were written by me and used by others: 1. the first reference is from text on the Adelaida Cellars web site that I wrote. 2 and 3. The next two references at virtualslo were either copied from the Adelaida Cellars web site, or from the Adelaida Cellars press kit that I wrote some time ago. 4. The last reference is from the Central Coast skin of Wine Country This Week (July 2008); I wrote the article in that magazine verbatim. Joe A. Gargiulo 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagpr (talk • contribs)

To do this you will need to release your work under the WP:CC-BY-SA license. You will have to do this by noting it on your website or filling with OTRS by filling out WP:CONSENT and emailing it to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". If you need any more help let me know. I am going to decline your article request till that comes through. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BMP tagging

Hi Earwig, could you do something about the bot tagging bmp files for renaming ? Almost all those files should be converted to PNG, so there is no real point in moving them. Thank you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And could you please have the bot remove all those cases, because once such moves are made, they are kinda impossible to deal with. (i can't move them back, or upload a PNG over them in order to move them back. Rather annoying). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've stopped the bot from tagging images with the MIME types image/x-bmp and image/x-ms-bmp – you're quite right, tagging 'em that way is wrong, and it isn't a good idea. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'll be able to get the bot to go through and remove the ones it has already tagged. I'll take a look very soon and see what I can do. — ⊥ɥǝ Ǝɐɹʍıƃ (ʇɐlʞ) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{User:IBen/TB|Mono}} mono 22:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Read it, thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ramon Magsaysay High School, Manila

You deleted Ramon Magsaysay High School, Manila as a copyvio. I was working on the article at the same time (although I wasn't the one who created the article), and had just cut the article down to a harmless stub in order to eliminate the copyvio. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that mistake; I've restored your edit and left the rest of the article deleted. Thanks for telling me. — The Earwig (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Blurt-site

Hi, I tagged the page as blurt site as patent nonsense, as its an 'underground movement' that happened to start today, and appeared to be created by synthesising a range of topics. Since there have been precedents to social science terms being used to obfuscate nonsense eg the Sokal affair, and none of the references were related to the topic, I tagged the page as nonsense. At best the page is a neologism that exists only in wikipedia and is synthesis / original research, so I'll put it up for a deletion discussion. Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I understand your reasoning; the article is definitely a neologism, original research, and in its current state is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The problem is, I understand what the article is trying to say to a certain extent. It isn't random gibberish (e.g., jghkjdfghjkgfhfg), and it isn't a series of random words mixed together (e.g., apple dog cat foo). While it really isn't appropriate, it doesn't fall under Wikipedia's definition of patent nonsense either. Because of this, it shouldn't be deleted under CSD G1, even though it may seem like it should be in some ways. I guess it could be a possible hoax or something similar to the Sokal affair as you mentioned, but that cannot be confirmed and it still does not make it patent nonsense. Best. — The Earwig (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind in future. I was hoping csd would apply in some way, as since its been listed already under WP:PROD and contested by the creator, so the only other step available is AFD, which I cant see it having a chance of passing. Thanks again Clovis Sangrail (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Infobox criminal

Thanks for your bot work on {{Infobox criminal}}. Is that complete, now? If so, I can complete the template changes. Also, there's a very similar request at Infobox journalist parameter rename, which you might kindly like to handle. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's complete now; you're welcome to complete the template changes and remove the old functionality. I had seen the other request, and I'm not completely sure if I'm willing to handle it at this time, but I am indeed thinking about it. I'll let you know some time in the future. — The Earwig (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a side note; we may encounter some problems with users accidentally reverting bot edits. Very few pages will be affected, probably three or four, but they're hard to detect. Please be sure that you take this into account when changing the template. — The Earwig (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Happy The Earwig's Day!

User:The Earwig has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as The Earwig's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear The Earwig!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! What a pleasant surprise. Definitely not something I expected to see when responding to the "new messages" banner. Thanks! — The Earwig (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Task 14 of your User:EarwigBot for Category:Canadian music

Earwig, I would like your User:EarwigBot (task 14) to run for all Category items under the Category:Canadian music for the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_music. If the Canadian music category page does not have the [[WikiProject Canada]] template on the talk page put: {{WikiProject Canada|class=Cat|importance=???|music=yes}}. I'm guessing there are about 300 Canadian music categories? Your bot will not be modifing any article pages. What do I need to do to make this happen? Thanks. Argolin (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, very well then. I'll try to get to this later today, thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't sound so disappointed! I can't wait. Well actually.. I'll have much maintenance to do. I know that User:EarwigBot may double up on templates. SO WHAT! I'll fix them based on the ???. I will look at the most used cats first. Further, to be clear, I have been discussing this with the project's admin Moxy Also, it may bring to light improperly assigned cat's (I think I know of one). Can you feel the excitement? Can you smell it? No, your a bug!!! Thanks very much... Argolin (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Earwig, run the (task 14) bot to add {{WikiProject Canada|class=Cat|importance=???|music=yes}} to the talk page for all Category items under the Category:Canadian music for the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_music. I must appologise, there have been scores of updates to the WikiProject Canada banner template. It's hard to keep track. I've done some edits on the Canadian music categories today. I've seen just about every combination of parameters and banner templates. Argolin (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by |importance=???. Do you think it would be better to leave the parameter blank? — The Earwig (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Earwig, thank-you ever so much. When I first posted my request an importance=??? was an acceptable parameter. The wiki software accepted this parameter and the software would do just that. Assign an unknown importance to the category page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Canadian music articles by quality statistics. I've was trying to find out what happened. I believe, someone saw my request for the bot on the other page and jumped all over it. Instead of reading and understanding what the objective is, they declared that I cannot have an importance ???.

To answer your question, a blank importance will assign it to NA. Eventually, yes. That is what I will assign. Please look at this category: Category:Canadian music templates. This item was not on the stats page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Canadian music articles by quality statistics until I added the banner template. I added all the namespace templates and nav templates on the main category page. I also added Category:Canadian pop singers templates. The person who created the pop templates only assigned it to Category:pop singers templates. As a big bonus, I even linked Category:Canadian music templates to Category:Music templates.

All of the maintenance noted directly above is typical. I need a way to differentiate the categories between ones I've already look at and are ok (ie the 98 in the NA), and all the new ones which the bot will pick up. With all that said, I leaning towards an importance=low. Would it be too much to ask for a list I can review before the bot executes? I don't even know how many new categories I'm going to see and how much work I will have. Thank-you again for your time. Argolin (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ValhallaBot

Please explain this; you appear to have given no reason. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to WP:DENY as much as possible; please check the requester's userpage or the bot's userpage to see why I did it. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. that's understandable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

AfC: List of Jiddu krishnamurti Works.

The bot has erroneously flagged copyright issues. Upon examination, the flags consist of material of the current, or previous iterations of the Jiddu Krishnamurti article, of which I'm a contributor. The proposed AfC is actually a split from that article; obviously some bot would mistakenly flag it anyway. Thank you. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti"

The bot erroneously flagged coyright violations. The flagged material that appears in various external links is actually part of the current or previous versions of Jiddu Krishnamurti of which the proposed AfC is a split. I have been editing Jiddu Krishnamurti for the past several months. Thank you. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about this. Unfortunately, the bot currently isn't smart enough to distinguish between a genuine copyright violation and a non-violation, so it tags suspected violations even if it is not one-hundred percent sure. Please accept the creator's apologies for this; you're welcome to ignore the bot's message if you want, as it seems clear that no violation occured. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for creation, Pritesh Gupta

The blogcatalog article is written by Pritesh Gupta himself and the Blog Wptat.com also belongs to Pritesh Gupta, Thus there are no copyright problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.84.65 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Move Failed

I can't move the page to afc because it already exists, and due to a stupid typo on my behalf, the article is now located at WikipWikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Audio Secrecy. Help ! :) Acather96 (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I kind of fixed it. I think. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 10:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

hi, i am trying to put a new article on Wikipedia about mobile application development but its being rejected by stating that it looks more like an advertisement. does citing the name of any company makes the article an advirtisement???

mrinal (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Foul play at Afc

Hi, I've been working at Afc for a few months, and today saw a submission that was recently created and the template was still there. I preloaded the talk and informed the author. I then, by accident clicked on Page History and noticed something: the user who created the page - Richard.darren- was the same one who accepted it! Is there some kind of rule preventing this and what action should I take? Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the page affected was Audio SecrecyAcather96 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Mmm... yes, I've seen this sort of thing before. It's a way for users to get around New Page Patrol, as you might have guessed, because page moves do not appear in Special:NewPages. I don't think there's a rule against it, but it's obviously inappropriate and generally the best thing to do is to revert the move and put it back in the Articles for creation namespace (don't forget to get the redirect deleted). This allows us to continue the review normally. I notice the submission was on hold at the time it was moved. — The Earwig (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, will do :) Acather96 (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a good job for a bot. Josh Parris 09:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You think so? It would probably require a person to review, but a bot would be good to find cases where a user might've done it. — The Earwig (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Josh. I'll look into it. Acather96 (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand template

Well, the dust is settling, and it appears that the previous decision to delete {{Expand}} has been overturned. I just checked the page and the Appeals template has been removed, but now, again, I cannot see the template on the page. I think the code you put there before that allows it to be seen on its own page even though protected is still there, but the template does not appear. Is there more code needed?

Also, I put it on my Talk page to see if I could see it there, and it didn't show up.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Update. The Expand template now shows up on my Talk page because an editor inquired about it on the template's Talk page, and editor Amalthea restored the visibility. So you might want to check if your previous edit still makes the template invisible on protected pages. Other than that, everything looks copacetic.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it, but I don't have time right now to do a careful check. Maybe you could make sure I did it right? — The Earwig (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Adriana Allen

I am curious why you have this page listed for deletion. Adriana is a published author and noted magazine editor. Can you please clarify the deletion and spam notes. Regards - KR Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriss24 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I had listed the page for deletion because I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that discussed it. Reliable sources – basically, any reputable website, newspaper, etc. that discusses the subject in depth – are required in an article on Wikipedia, not only to prove that our information is accurate, but to make sure that we only include articles about notable subjects. I searched through Google in an attempt to find something, but was unsuccessful, leading me to believe that the company wasn't notable (worthy of inclusion). You might like to check out the notability guideline for organizations and companies and the notability guideline for people. The point of an Articles for Deletion discussion, like the one that took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Allen, is to decide, via consensus, whether an article should stay on Wikipedia or not – and the discussion concluded that it shouldn't. However, it has been a while since the article was deleted; you are welcome to recreate it if you have reliable sources supporting the subject. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Second opinion requested: adrianaallen.com --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

IRC tool

I tried using your IRC tool at [2] and it will not load, it just has a blank white screen with no log on screen. It worked yesterday. Is this a local error or is the tool disabled. Thanks --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

fixed --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
...? At any rate, I strongly recommend getting a real IRC client if you want to stay in the channel for any length of time. It's really only for AfC submitters, not reviewers. — The Earwig (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

EarwigBot

Heads up, your bot on IRC went down at 22:17 UTC 25-May-10. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Is it okay now? — The Earwig (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

data gathering advice

Dear The Earwig,

I recently went to the Wikipedia live help IRC channel to ask for some bot advice. Chzz referred me to you. I am about to begin a research study on the histories and life cycles of Wikipedia policies. In particular, I will be looking into the discussions associated with these histories and life cycles. For this purpose, I need to collect massive amounts of data about each of the policies, guidelines, and essays in Wikipedia. Basically I need to somehow extract all of the discussions that relate to the policy/guideline/essay, so that I can put together the story of how each item came to be what it is. From what I understand, sources of data include, but are not limited to:

  1. The talk page for the essay/guideline/policy
  2. Request for comment/policies
  3. Village pump
  4. Signpost announcements
  5. User talk pages


From what I understand, there are 2 ways I can go about about collecting my data:

  1. Download the entire Wikipedia archive to a hard drive and extract information from it.
  2. Use a bot to collect data from the online Wikipedia website itself, via the Wikipedia API.


I'm not sure which of these two method I should use. What I do know is that I would like to use Python whenever possible. Which tool(s) do you recommend? Also, how would I go about learning how to use these tools?

Thank you for your time.
--Benjamin James Bush (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Downloading the entire database might be easier, simply because it allows you to get all of the data at once and work with it without making a large number of separate queries to the API. The full list of dumps can be found at http://dumps.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html. The latest complete dump I could find is from March 12, which isn't that old, but it's not as new as possible. That dump can be found here. You'd probably want either pages-meta-history.xml or pages-meta-current.xml, depending on whether you want old versions of pages or not (probably isn't necessary for discussions, as most talk pages have archives, but history searches can be useful for finding specific changes to page text).
There are multiple tools you can use to read XML dumps; if you're working with Python, I recommend getting yourself acquainted with the Pywikipedia framework. Designed as a suite of scripts to allow programmers to write Wikipedia-editing bots, it can also be used to retrieve data and process information inside XML dumps. This is the framework I would use for what you're doing. The thing is, it's probably not the most efficient way of doing it, but it should be able to get the job done and I'm comfortable using it. The main version of it is not very Pythonic and takes a while to figure out, and the rewrite branch is better, yet feature-incomplete. The latest version is available through svn at http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia/, but you can also use the nightly build if you prefer. Once you've installed it, configuring is relatively simple: run the generate_user_files.py script, then login.py. Because you won't be editing anything, it doesn't really matter which Wikipedia account you use for configution, but "Benjamin James Bush" makes the most sense. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pywikipedia contains a much more detailed set of instructions, but keep in mind that you won't be using a good portion of the framework, only the XML-reading part of it.
Now that we have that set up, you can begin processing the actual XML dumps. This is done with the xmlreader.py file, which you can import via your own script. You'd probably have something like:
# my dump-processing script
import wikipedia
from xmlreader import *

dump = XmlDump("pages-meta-history.xml", allrevisions=True) # load the xml dump
gen = dump.parse() # create a generator to handle all pages in the dump
...at the beginning. The generator object yields every page in the dump, with each one having different attributes. You'll probably be able to figure out more about the module by reading through the source code; I don't know if this will work 100%, because I don't normally experiment with this area of Wikipedia. Anyway, once you're done with that, it's up to you to handle the data as you want. For example, to retrieve all of the discussion text pertaining to the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one might want to retrieve the text from all talk pages of that policy, like so:
dump = XmlDump("pages-meta-history.xml", allrevisions=False) # load the xml dump
gen = dump.parse() # create a generator to handle all pages in the dump

for rev in gen: # Returns every page, I'd think? Would be XmlEntry() objects.
    if rev.title.startswith("Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view"): # includes archives and the main page
        print rev.text
I'll briefly touch on the API, because it might be easier in the sense that you'll be able to do it without installing a framework. The api is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php; that page should provide most of the information you need to know which queries will suit your purposes. For example, this query:
...will return the text for Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Using the rvlimit parameter will retrieve the text from multiple revisions, such as:
...and so on, and so forth. Processing the result can be done by using a format such as JSON (this is what I'd recommend for API queries), and Python has pretty good JSON support. An script that will retrieve the text from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and print it might look like this:
# my api-processing script
import json, urllib
params = {'action':'query', 'prop':'revisions', 'rvlimit':1, 'rvprop':'content', 'format':'json'}
params['titles'] = "Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view"
data = urllib.urlencode(params)
raw = urllib.urlopen("http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php", data)
res = json.loads(raw.read())
pageid = res['query']['pages'].keys()[0]
content = res['query']['pages'][pageid]['revisions'][0]['*']
print content
I don't know how familiar you are with Python or Wikipedia's structure as it is, so unfortunately I don't know how much else I can say. I hope this helps; feel free to come back and ask me more questions or if you need additional clarification, etc. — The Earwig (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The Earwig,
Thank you for putting the bug in my ear, this will really help me get started. For the time being I think it is not feasible for me to download the Wikipedia dump (but perhaps I will buy a 4 terabyte hard drive at some point in the future). I will therefore need to make a lot of API queries. As you said earlier, the preferred python tool for API queries is JSON. My question is, should I also be using the pywikipedia framework? If so, how do JSON and Pywikipedia fit together? Could I make API queries with JSON, and then process the result with Pywikipedia? Or do you think it would be better to use JSON alone? Thanks!! --Benjamin James Bush (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can definitely use Pywikipedia and JSON together. However, it probably isn't necessary in your case, as you aren't going to be editing pages, and most of Pywiki's functions revolve around that. If you're going to use the API, most of Pywiki's functions will probably seem redundant; e.g., the page.get() function in Pywikipedia returns page text and you already know how to do that. I introduced the API because it's a lower-level way of accessing page text and other data than Pywikipedia, which seemed better in your case. Pywikipedia does have some interesting functions though; for example, you can use some functions to create generators for categories or for reading text files, but again, these are things you can still do with the API. Using them in conjunction can be done if you want, I do it for some of my bots, but again; you probably won't find it necessary if you have the full API at your disposal. — The Earwig (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Moving to Afc

I remember agreeing to the wording in User:Chzz/test, but if I signed up for carrying out such notices, I missed it. Great job on cleaning up what was a mess, but I do think that if an article is moved to AfC, the original editor should get a notice. I think that is best done by whomever does the moving. (I'll copy Earwig.) I haven't checked all the example, but I did check one example, and I don't see that User:Acklis was notified.--SPhilbrickT 16:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Earwig, in the interests of keeping in one place, pls -> User_talk:Chzz#Moving_to_AfC ty.  Chzz  ►  16:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

please help me

Hi ! I am trying to modify the conflict names. There are more KENDUA name exist in different area (District, Country). So I want to link all of them from the list in below: Kendua (Bengali: কেন্দুয়া) may refer to the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendua where

Bangladesh 

   * [Kendua Netrokona]

India 

   * [Kendua, West Bengal]

please help for it Moshiur Rahman Khan 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshiur Rahman Khan (talk • contribs)

Hi there. I'm trying to figure it out; I think I've got most of it fixed. Is this what you wanted? — The Earwig (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It is working now smoothly but each country should required to define as different part. However, it is okay.Moshiur Rahman Khan 20:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshiur Rahman Khan (talk • contribs)

I understand what you mean, but that would probably make more sense if there were multiple entries for each country. Oh well. — The Earwig (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

About the page for Alphaville's single "Fools"

Hi The Earwig

I'm sorry for the page, I didnt mean for it to bo nothing on it. I have edited it again, and I hope you find it okay this time

Sorry, i'm new here so I don't know so mutch yet

Zika-star (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Mistakes are no big deal on Wikipedia, because they are easily reversed. Feel free to experiment with formatting in the sandbox. If you have any questions about anything, feel free to ask me. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AWB early June

On June 3-4, 4 users requested use of AWB. You acted on 3. Just wondering why you didn't do anything with mine. I did look at going to WP:AN, since it has been well more than 48 hours, but I didn't see any obvious place to raise the question. Any help/suggestions would be nice. PS. I'm watching this page, so you can reply here. Thanks. David V Houston (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that's odd. I was going through the requests in a random order – I had noticed yours, was thinking about completing it, but for some reason I must've overlooked it when I finished the others. Sorry; it's  Done by the way. — The Earwig (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. David V Houston (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Advices on my contribution

Hi Earwig

Thanks for your review of my contribution titled "Application of Cluster Analysis in Educational Research". You commented that my article appeared like a school essay rather than an encyclopedia writing, which I agree. But after reading several wiki articles and tip pages, I am still clueless on how exactly I can make my page less essay like. Would you mind giving me some concrete comments, for example, on the organization or information quantity?

Thanks Jucypsycho (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Jucypsycho

Hi there, sorry for the very late response. Various elements of an article can make it seem essay-like. For example, a "conclusion" section isn't normally found in an encyclopedia article. The problem with the topic you've selected is that it isn't something one would normally expect to find in an encyclopedia. You may find an article on "Cluster analysis", and an article on "Educational physiology", but not an article that applies one to the other; this information would probably be found in a section in cluster analysis and not in its own article. In addition, an essay can have original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Original research is anything not immediately available in a reliable source; a conclusion obtained based on your own investigation, for example. This type of material is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

EarwigBot delinking mainspace categories

When EarwigBot says it is delinking mainspace categories in declined Articles for creation submissions, it puts a colon before the word category. But the delinked page still appears in the category page. I was told one has to nowiki out the categories. What does the colon do? Abductive (reasoning) 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The colon turns the usage of a real category into a link to that category; [[:Category:Foo]] is just a link, while [[Category:Foo]] actually puts the page in that category. The same works for images:
  • [[File:Bad Title Example.png]]:
The delinked page most likely appeared in the category list due to database lag; it takes a while for the database to purge itself after categories are updated. You do not have to nowiki a category to make it serve as just a link. However, if you did find an instance where the bot messed up, what page are we referring to? — The Earwig (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

I was the same writer for the contribution cited in the Calgary wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnovilla (talk • contribs) 00:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, have two articles for creation submitted. But I prefer to keep the So-Cal (Southern Calgary) page. I've mistakenly used the wrong title but they have the same content. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnovilla (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Could I have feedback on...

this- I've AGFed about the reliability of the sources, but I'd like a second opinion on accepting it. Thanks, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 06:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The content needs a little work (cleanup, but very minor), otherwise the actual article seems fine. As for sourcing; I'm going to look a little closer – give me a few minutes. — The Earwig (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be fine. — The Earwig (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ Talk! or Diannaa TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! --Diannaa TALK 01:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Earwig/Archive_4&oldid=1232599538"